BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:51 AM

...even when, like Hamza they preach that "Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don't like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you";

or like el-Faisal are imprisoned for "urging followers to murder Jews, Hindus, Christians and Americans".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:46 AM

The clerics aren't using the weapons any more than the scientists are.

Of course not, Jack. When preaching hate they have no idea that their followers may take up arms against the 'enemy'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:14 PM

"Heheh. I made my case in my last post about this fellow's lack of grasp of genetics, and now I can rest it."

Congratulations! Another reasoned position backed with evidence. Pete has again defeated you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:08 PM

>>From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:45 PM
>> Wacko. <<

Do you know the current rules of this forum? I could post the link again for you if you need it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:05 PM

Bill,

I think it may be worth pointing out that the man is not a working scientist. He is currently employed by a creationist propaganda group.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:15 PM

"...because his phd is only in chemistry that he is not entitled to write on other disciplines..."

He is entitled to write on anything, as long as he uses the data & standards OF that discipline to guide his thoughts.

As to other PhDs... I don't see any specific article you suggested, Pete.... at least not in the last 50 posts. The articles I read were found by ME.

"...I would say that your belief in evolutionism is just as much a religious position as his. you cite all those disciplines as validating and interrelated to evolution yet your area is in none of those either. "

We have gone over this 20 times, Pete. I cannot BE an expert in all those areas any more than YOU can... but I am qualified to analyze and comment on logic, reason and forms of argument. You have agreed for several years that you have NOT had the relevant years of study, yet you consistently attempt to use your **belief** to validate your acceptance of the writers at Creation.com as 'authority', when all they are doing is using THEIR beliefs to create arguments for YOUR beliefs to grab onto.

   My respect for the work done by a thousand scientists & analysts regarding evolution is not a **BELIEF**! The very word belief exists to describe positions held in spite of other evidence or when there is no evidence one way or another. I accept the conclusions of scientists who DO have qualifications in various other disciplines because they do not act on mere 'belief'.... they measure, study, compare, analyze and integrate all sorts of data and put forth opinions to the best of their knowledge. When Sarfati and others in YEC groups argue against mainstream science, they are starting with belief and assuming that any scientific opinion which does not agree is somehow flawed and must involve a mistake somewhere.

I have offered you many times the 'out' for belief in a Supreme Being as one who kick-started the universe... but to decide when this happened or how it has proceeded or what the data & evidence show MUST be left to those who use other sources than old manuscripts & superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:45 PM

Utterly simplistic, Wacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:52 PM

>>Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons

As I said earlier. Don't blame the tools. Blame those using them. Weapons are useless unless someone has the desire to use them.<<

That's the point I am making. The clerics aren't using the weapons any more than the scientists are. The young men are using the weapons that the scientists make on the orders of the politicians.

In my opinion, the clerics usually don't do anything but give justification for things the killers already want to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:50 PM

another thing I see, is that since a mutation can be something as trivial of swapping two letters in a 4 letter sequence and since there are many factors that can trigger such swaps, in a 2.5 billion year time span, it seems more likely to me that every possible combination has existed and competed. If you look at it mathematically. In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time.

Heheh. I made my case in my last post about this fellow's lack of grasp of genetics, and now I can rest it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:47 PM

The accepted wisdom on the formation of ours and most solar systems is that interstellar gas builds up in a swirling vortex in certain areas

"Swirling vortex", huh? And who's "accepted wisdom" might that be then? :-)

Think of the sun as an hourglass. Hydrogen converts to helium at a certain rate just as the sand flows through the neck of the hourglass at a certain rate. Does it make sense that an "intelligent designer" would create the hourglass with a third of the sand in the bottom of the glass already? I don't think so.

Utter tripe. "Think of the sun as an hourglass" my arse. And the rest. Mind you, you do have a wonderful imagination.

But I also know that varying degrees of web feet are common enough in humans that I have met several people born with that trait. It seems obvious to me that the trait is in the human gene pool already. Should it become somehow a useful trait, it would be a lot more likely that the trait would arise in the population from the existing gene pool rather than through random mutation. Who knows? maybe these people are finding each other as we speak and breeding a whole new generation of Olympic swimmers.

Rather than simply barking "gibberish." Maybe science expert Mr. Shaw would like to weigh in on this theory of mine...

Well I certainly wouldn't accord it the dignity of a "theory". Fantasy or whimsy, perhaps. Wacko, dear fellow, you really do need to stop digging yourself into a massive hole with this silly webbed-feet nonsense. You betray an elemental lack of understanding of genetics every time you bring it up. I'd love to ask you to cease and desist, but, dammit, it's so bloody entertaining...

And well said, Michael, before I forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

>>>
shimrod, challenging evolutionism in no way challenges scientific disciplines. I think I could even find a [non creationist] quote that that expresses the opinion that all of science progresses very well, without reference to evolution, including biology...that is not to say that it is not mentioned in papers...as an expected gloss.
I think that it is probably the equating of neo Darwinism with natural selection that may make it seem that evolutionism is genuinely pervading science.<<<

I have no idea what you mean here I can guess I guess but it does nt matter. I have point out that your theory of creation includes a universe that is less than 7,000 years old and that challenges EVERY field of science I can think of in untold ways. shimrod is right on this one no matter what you are saying vis a vis "evolutionism."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

DMcG

another thing I see, is that since a mutation can be something as trivial of swapping two letters in a 4 letter sequence and since there are many factors that can trigger such swaps, in a 2.5 billion year time span, it seems more likely to me that every possible combination has existed and competed. If you look at it mathematically. In so many trials the mutations would not only lead to useful information but to every possible state of information time after time.

Its like buying every possible ticket in a Powerball draw, with natural selection to sort out the losing tickets and doing that billions of times. If you look at the math once life gets started it is hard to imagine life not evolving.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

pete you have disappointed me twice, you insulted shimrod, inaccurately for no reason I could determine, slightly weakening my case that you have been behaving better than Mr. Shaw.

You also pulled out that saw of God creating the Universe in a way that makes it look as if it appears to be older than 6,000 years.

The accepted wisdom on the formation of ours and most solar systems is that interstellar gas builds up in a swirling vortex in certain areas until gravity collapses this gas into suns and planets, the suns have enough gravity and mass to ignite nuclear fusion. The solar wind (outstreaming radiation from the fusion process) strips the hydrogen and helium from the inner bodies, but is too weak further out to do that to outer planets formed at this time and after a few billion years you have a solar system like ours.


We generally know the relative amounts of elements such as hydrogen and helium. Astrophysicists have done the math on thousands of stars and the math works.   

Think of the sun as an hourglass. Hydrogen converts to helium at a certain rate just as the sand flows through the neck of the hourglass at a certain rate. Does it make sense that an "intelligent designer" would create the hourglass with a third of the sand in the bottom of the glass already? I don't think so.

It is also a little disappointing that you talk about "reasoned" arguments and think you can counter what I have said with "any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati"
The process of science is not to look for the answer that best fits our preformed assumptions. It is the one that best fits the evidence we observe. The most logical assumption is that the ratio of Hydrogen to helium in the sun started out about the same as the ratio of those elements in this part of the universe. The assumption that you and johnathan safati are trying to sell to us is less than elegant. There is 4.5 billion years extra helium in the sun. How do you suppose, if it wasn't from the passage of time, that helium got there? was the specific part of the galaxy unnaturally rich in helium? If it was, then the same think happened with the stars in our neighborhood. Did some sort of "helium specific magnet sweep through out part of the galaxy and remove the excess interstellar helium after the sun was formed? That's less plausible. Did the "intelligent designer" put the extra helium in the sun to "antique" it the way some furniture dealers do? I don't like that idea. It implies that God committed fraud.

I donno pete. I admire your dedication and persistence, and until today, I've admired your grace under criticism. I guess you still are supernaturally patient with Mr. Shaw. But you have lost all credibility in arguing science. Of course I'll try to keep an open mind, If a four day theory of stellar formation comes to the fore and the math works, I promise to revisit this topic with you. If that happens though, we'll talk about how your theory conflicts with Einsteins'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:58 PM

I think the "engine room" as it were, for this is the intricate workings of the DNA/RNA, and nano machines and sequencies in the cell. the information in the DNA letters feed this development and constitution of the organism . there are, as has been noted, copying errors/mutations, and neo Darwinism claims that these can accidentally generate novel information to facilitate goo to you evolution. as I said earlier, no new information has, far as I know, demonstrated that this has happened

That is where I think we need more clarity, pete. Let us assume everyone here agrees with the first part: that DNA/RNA sequences define the mechanism to develop the organism. Now, what is your rule, looking at the DNA or RNA, for saying whether or not novel information has been added? We need a good definition of the 'amount' of information before we can say whether it has increased or decreased or stayed the same. Clearly, since each child is genetically different from their parents you can't simply look at whether the DNA is different.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:54 PM

dmcg...I regard myself as chastened. and I take shimrods word that he has a science background, even though it seems that background has little to say on origins.
what I mean by information, and I accept that I may not have expressed it well, is that there is like a blueprint in every organism that provides the make up, features, growth and anything else that contributes to how that organism develops. I think the "engine room" as it were, for this is the intricate workings of the DNA/RNA, and nano machines and sequencies in the cell. the information in the DNA letters feed this development and constitution of the organism . there are, as has been noted, copying errors/mutations, and neo Darwinism claims that these can accidentally generate novel information to facilitate goo to you evolution. as I said earlier, no new information has, far as I know, demonstrated that this has happened. maybe, it could conceivably happen, but there ought to be plenty to cite if neo Darwin were true
hence, the challenge. if it is not demonstrable. it is a faith position! now I may have used wrong words/terminology, but I stand to be corrected, but it is the main concept, not the words that primarily matter.

shimrod, challenging evolutionism in no way challenges scientific disciplines. I think I could even find a [non creationist] quote that that expresses the opinion that all of science progresses very well, without reference to evolution, including biology...that is not to say that it is not mentioned in papers...as an expected gloss.
I think that it is probably the equating of neo Darwinism with natural selection that may make it seem that evolutionism is genuinely pervading science.

bill...presumably your opening shot implies that because his phd is only in chemistry that he is not entitled to write on other disciplines. I presume you did not read the article I suggested, because you would not then make that inference, since near the beginning he credits two other phd,s whose area of expertise does cover the subject, and who checked his work.
I would say that your belief in evolutionism is just as much a religious position as his. you cite all those disciplines as validating and interrelated to evolution yet your area is in none of those either. you cant possibly make such a blanket claim, however good your skills of logic otherwise are. its just more elephant hurling. I suggest, it might be a logical fallacy to attack the man, rather than dealing with the argument.
I am sure that he also would say that NO ONE acting only as a scientist would believe in the general theory of evolution. there are no scientists that don't have presuppositions and a priori assumptions
you claim his arguments are twisted and flawed.....but your only rationale for that is because evolutionary scientists don't agree with him!.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:23 PM

Pete quoted Jonathan Sarfati... here he is.

Jonathan Sarfati

Here is what he is involved in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

He has a PhD in chemistry, and is a chess master. This illustrates the point about wearing multiple hats. His belief in Young Creationism is a **religious** belief, not a scientific one. All the relevant, interrelated scientific disciplines, such as physics, cosmology, geology, palentology...etc., point to the age of the Earth in the billions of years and the history of mankind in the hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on what your basic definition is. **NO ONE** acting purely as a scientist accepts a 5-8 thousand year old concept of creation.
In so far as Sarfati tries to defend Young Earth Creationism, he is warping & twisting scientific data, and re-interpreting the basic finding in order to force them into compliance with his religious beliefs. I have not researched HOW he came to his religious beliefs... perhaps it was some psychological/emotional decision... but all his seemingly well developed mental abilities have been used in two very different ways. By taking YEC views AS a primary premise, he has created a 'logical' web of conclusions that ignores any consideration of the factual basis of that primary premise.
   You just can't DO that!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:11 PM

"I think it was shimrod who , above, seems to think I should have a grasp of every scientific argument, while he himself is pretty short of any good argument , let alone a scientific one.
he also thinks I am taking on the leading thinkers of the day, ..."

Hmmmm! Touchy, pete! I must have hit a nerve!

The point that I was making, in my last post, was that modern evolutionary thinking is closely integrated with many other modern scientific fields - you challenge evolution, you challenge all of the others - and, let's be honest, you don't appear to be equipped to do that, pete! And of course it's you that needs the "good arguments" because it is you who is doing the challenging!

And if you read back over many of my previous posts you will see that all that I have done, really, is to ask you some searching, logical questions and recommended a book to you. I deliberately haven't advanced many "arguments" because evolutionary biology is not my field - I'm just an interested observer with a scientific background (and, it has to be said, a deep distrust of religious fundamentalists).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:04 PM

Hi all. Sad enough to have cached this thread and read it in a bar earlier.

I'll take you up on that beer Jack, my French hosts understand every bit of alcohol except beer.

Sorry though, our friend pete has indeed spoke of brainwashing children in the YEC thread and that can never be brushed under the carpet. I have no issue with him believing it anymore than my mate who reckons the moon landings were faked or that Sean Bean bloke who thinks Sheffield United are a football team.

But we can see from the radicalisation of religions in all sectors, society is now suffering rather than being enriched by religion. When I was a lad, churches had Wesley hymns, King James thee & thou and no fuss. I went to a christening last year where they sang silly chants to drums. & guitar and something called the peace where strangers invade your space and hug you.

Alright for Johnny ruddy Foreigner, but not very British what?

Ignorant peasants in Pakistan speak of death for cartoons and jokes and criminals support the notion. American far right Christians murder surgeons and nurses. Wars carry on bastardising their interpretation of love. Priests and their mates bugger children with impunity. Church leaders talk of loving gay people but accept God hates them.

No. If it's all the same to you, being nice to them only encourages the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 01:02 PM

Have you found Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM

First, pete, you do yourself a disservice in that opening section. Normally you avoid such sniping and it is a shame you fell into it this time.

Onto more interesting stuff: you talk about adding and removing 'information'. That's rather informal: do you mean information in the precisely defined mathematical sense? If so, I could do it, but it would look like a couple of pages of algebra, and probably still wouldn't capture the essence of what you are really getting at. Is it possible for you to define what you mean by 'information' sufficiently precisely that several readers, including yourself, cannot disagree whether in any particular case it has been added or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:10 PM

I think it was shimrod who , above, seems to think I should have a grasp of every scientific argument, while he himself is pretty short of any good argument , let alone a scientific one.
he also thinks I am taking on the leading thinkers of the day,- there are evidently some superior intelligencies on this thread, but I've yet to see any post from shimrod that would include him in that category.

ok, more on the sun.
the evolutionist starting assumption is that the suns core has 4.5 billion yrs of helium - not directly observed.
only a certain amount is observed.
any age calculation must make an assumption about the initial composition of the sun, assuming very little helium
    from   age of the sun    johnathan safati
he goes on to talk about the   faint young sun paradox...and how that is a problem for evolutionists.
and so jack, it is not as simple as you think.

you can call my sources, lies or nonsense if you like, but a number of the above posts are confused or make claims unsubstantiated.
beneficial mutations are not the same as novel information arising from a mutation. let me remind you that when dawkins was challenged to give an example, there was a long silence, before giving an evasive speech. if neo evo were true there ought to be plenty of example. info loss in a mutation that confers an advantage to an organism, is not new info, it cannot provide goo to you via the zoo evolution. "guest" I think asserted otherwise but failed to evidence that claim. guest did infact say, above, that "new" was needed if evolution happened at all.
so , there is the challenge, maybe just 2 or 3 examples of a mutation shown to have provided new info to validate the neo Darwin story

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:29 AM

Spot on, Michael. Glad to see at least someone gets the gist of what I am saying.

Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons

As I said earlier. Don't blame the tools. Blame those using them. Weapons are useless unless someone has the desire to use them. Are you blaming scientists for the first caveman who hit another over the head with a rock?

Oh, BTW, Max designed and constructed this site. I guess you think it is his fault that people abuse it? Oh, hang on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:10 AM

Sorry about typos and grammar glitches in the previous few posts. Woke up and hour or two ago and am killing time to get sleepy again.

night all.   Go Broncos!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:05 AM

You give me a story about 25 men allegedly preaching hate, none of whom are accused of putting any weapon in any hands. None of whom are accused of ordering a any specific person to kill any person or group.
.,,.

"Putting weapons in hands" how literally? & surely depends how you define "ordering". If you preach murder to your congregation? How about Abu Hamza, then, Jack? Some extracts from his wikipedia entry (& NB el-Faisal* also):

Abu Hamza was formerly the imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, and a leader of "Supporters of Sharia", an extremist group that believed in a strict interpretation of Islamic law. In 2003, he addressed a rally in central London. In one sermon relating to the necessity of Jihad, he said: "Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don't like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you."

It is alleged that he associated with *Abdullah el-Faisal, a Jamaican Muslim convert cleric who preached in the UK until he was imprisoned for urging his followers to murder Jews, Hindus, Christians and Americans.
On 7 February 2006, he was found Guilty of six charges of soliciting murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

Will he do? If not, why not?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 06:00 AM

"But the webbing does not have to be in the genome already. "

I agree completely. Of course it does not have to be to already in the gene pool as a useful mutation. Though pete's sources might argue otherwise. I think that random, useful mutations do not occur is the crux of his "microbe to man" argument.

I believe that " useful" mutations do occur. (Before I get taunted again by "scientist" Mr. Shaw by "useful" I mean a mutation that could give a competitive advantage in mating that can be passed on genetically.)

But I also know that varying degrees of web feet are common enough in humans that I have met several people born with that trait. It seems obvious to me that the trait is in the human gene pool already. Should it become somehow a useful trait, it would be a lot more likely that the trait would arise in the population from the existing gene pool rather than through random mutation. Who knows? maybe these people are finding each other as we speak and breeding a whole new generation of Olympic swimmers.

Rather than simply barking "gibberish." Maybe science expert Mr. Shaw would like to weigh in on this theory of mine with some analysis of his own this time. I've actually tried to keep the vocab at a high school level in case he was having trouble with words like "anthropomorphize" in my other posts he couldn't understand."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:29 AM

>>>From: DMcG - PM
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:55 AM

Just in case anyone is in doubt: I agree that the term 'creationist scientist' is either meaningless or deceptive. An individual can be a scientist in other fields, but they cannot use science in the context of creationism: they are different categories. I may be a musician, and a bricklayer, but I cannot build a brick wall by playing a guitar. So I can accept 'creationist scientist' only in the same sense I can accept 'musician bricklayer'. <<<<

Good point. creationist biologist or creationist palentologist or creationist geologist would be going too far. But I then the term in vogue here is Creation Scientist, as in one who "studies" creation scientifically. I'll admit that the creation story in the Bible could be compared to the scientific evidence for it. But Occams Razor would cut any honest career in that field very short.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:21 AM

"So in this respect Soviet Communism and anti-Darwinian fundamentalists are in the same boat. "

Maybe not exactly the same boat. Anti-Darwinian fundamentalists haven't used pseudo-utopian idealism as an excuse to kill tens of millions of people. But neither has a grounding in real science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:18 AM

I'm sorry Dave, but I fear you are the one who is playing with words.

"I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill. "

You give me a story about 25 men allegedly preaching hate, none of whom are accused of putting any weapon in any hands. None of whom are accused of ordering a any specific person to kill any person or group.


"Anyone care to start the ball rolling with any number of scientists who preach hatred? I think not somehow."

Scientists don't preach. Would you care to start the ball rolling with any number of clerics who design and construct weapons?

"But it is being implied that science is the new religion and is becoming as bad. "

I didn't imply this. Never have I implied this. Shaw and Musket said I was saying this. But in fact I never have. I have said outright that Steve Shaw and many like him are as bad as many evangelical missionaries. I think comparing his behavior to pete's on this thread alone makes that case on the face of it. But on the whole I think that both science and religion are wonderful and have brought many benefits to mankind. Certainly both have seen abuses and caused death and suffering. But I am for both and against neither. But we must be vigilant of false prophets and snake oil salesmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:23 AM

I have never said that scientists do those things. I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill.

You may not have, Jack. But it is being implied that science is the new religion and is becoming as bad. I am saying that it is not. Now, not one cleric. How about 25 of them. Or do moslem clerics not count as religious? And 25 is recent and just a start. There are so called Christian clerics who are just as bad. You are just playing with words, Jack. I suspect you know very well what the argument is and are just trying to avoid the issue. I, for one, would rather see an honest string of profanities than a dishonest prevarication.

Anyone care to start the ball rolling with any number of scientists who preach hatred? I think not somehow.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:55 AM

Just in case anyone is in doubt: I agree that the term 'creationist scientist' is either meaningless or deceptive. An individual can be a scientist in other fields, but they cannot use science in the context of creationism: they are different categories. I may be a musician, and a bricklayer, but I cannot build a brick wall by playing a guitar. So I can accept 'creationist scientist' only in the same sense I can accept 'musician bricklayer'.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 03:07 AM

There's one thing that we can be sure of - there's no such thing as a 'creationist scientist' - the term is an oxymoron. No real scientist would consider her/himself to be in possession of 'absolute truth' and then attempt to work backwards from there. Nor would she/he expend vast amounts of effort trying to discredit all other scientists!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:40 AM

To some extent, that depends on who you call scientists.

That is easy. Those people who lead the way in scientific discovery.
A bit too self-referential I fear. As in my example, do you include social science and medicine?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:35 PM

Since Stalin has been brought into this thread, it's not amiss to note that Stalin chose as his lead biologist an anti-Darwinian named Lysenko, and biologists who advocated Darwinism could and did find themselves sent to the Gulags. Biology in the Soviet Union was set back a generation.

So in this respect Soviet Communism and anti-Darwinian fundamentalists are in the same boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 08:13 PM

Don't worry, guest, Wacko gets it even less than pete gets it. The rest of us can stick to the serious science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:22 PM

But the webbing does not have to be in the genome already. If it did there could never be any truly "new" features, and therefore no evolution.
Completely random, and completely new, mutations (simple copying errors) are absolutely required.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM

Disrespectful violation of the terms of use of this forum.


Its a fucking cartoon Steve, unbunch your panties!!


:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:47 PM

"Just stick to talking about your webbed feet, Wacko. Ot would that be Quacko. "

Disrespectful violation of the terms of use of this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:46 PM

Dave,

I have never said that scientists do those things. I could ask you to name a cleric that put a weapon in a boy's hand and ordered him to kill.

>>> In 1944, at a time when the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the struggle against Nazi Germany, it was important to convince Stalin that the Western democracies accepted him as an equal. "'In the world of the future, for which our soldiers have shed their blood on countless fronts", the British Prime Minister said in his bombastic style, "our three great democracies will demonstrate to all mankind that they, both in wartime and in peacetime, will remain true to the high principles of freedom, dignity, and happiness of the people. That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighbourly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican…"

"How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?" Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill's line of reasoning.

Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to earth from the nebulous heavens. <<<

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:43 PM

Just stick to talking about your webbed feet, Wacko. Ot would that be Quacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:31 PM

To some extent, that depends on who you call scientists.

That is easy. Those people who lead the way in scientific discovery. Primarily those who do not instruct their followers to kill, maim and torture those who do not believe what they are saying.

Jack. The point was addressed to you. Give me the name of any scientists who instructed their followers to kill, maim and torture those who do not believe what they are saying. If you do, which I doubt, I will return with at least ten times that number of religious leaders who did the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 05:07 PM

I see that you have opted for the full half hour argument.

Please keep in mind that an argument is not just contradiction. Or flinging "gibberish" as the case may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:36 PM

"Hello Polly! Hello Polly Parrot!"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:25 PM

Your arse seems not to be as unacquainted with the concept of metaphor as it is with reasoned debate.


Hint, arrogantly calling something "gibberish" is not an argument and it is not polite. It is also argumentative. There is no doubt in my mind that you are trying to start a fight.

Are you ignorant of the rules of this forum or are you arrogantly defying the rules of this forum.

the rules are here.

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

By the way, I'd much rather be compared to pete than you. He is respectful of the forum and of other people. He makes an effort to present knowledge and a reasoned argument.

You fling out words like "gibberish" the way a monkey flings what comes out of *his* butt.

If you don't like this forum enough to be respectful of it and the members of it, why do you bother to come here? Other than to fling "gibberish?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:12 PM

>>>
You are a respectable, respectful and measured poster who can be taken on over differences in perspective without rancour. <<<

The poster of these statements is None of the above.

>>>Wacko, I know you won't take that as an insult <<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:04 PM

For two, read several. I went awry with my copy 'n' pasting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 04:02 PM

"It can be an emergence of an older pattern within the genome."

"It is not just mutation, it is adaptation calling upon information that already existed in the genome. When the horse like creatures returned to the water to become whales and dolphins, the genomic plans for fins were already there. Some people are born with webbing between their fingers and toes, a survival trait that would be handy should Noah's flood return and not abate."

Well now. here we have two statements that betray the poster as someone who understands genetics and evolution approximately as much as pete does. Wacko, I know you won't take that as an insult because I can see from your posts how much you admire and respect pete.

But, actually, both statements constitute incomprehensible gibberish. "Adaptation calling upon information..." my arse. "When the horse like creatures returned to the water to become whales and dolphins" my arse. Jeez, my arse is getting worn out here. As the duchess said to the vicar...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:53 PM

Yes, Steve: at 13 I was attending pretty advanced science lectures aimed at people perhaps 25+, and also undergoing 'religious indoctrination'. I wonder how you would classify me? Hopelessly confused, perhaps? *smile*

Not at all. You are a respectable, respectful and measured poster who can be taken on over differences in perspective without rancour.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM

It depends on what you mean by random. Would you call having you grandfather's blue eyes "random?" My point is that the mutation does not have to be to a new thing. It can be an emergence of an older pattern within the genome.

You are right. It is not LITERALLY not "calling upon" because the effect is over generations and comes about through waves of individuals with one trait outbreeding another but the net effect is that a change in environment brings about changes in the population over time.

I was speaking figuratively for those who may not have the model and mathematics of natural selection firmly planted in their heads.

The fact that some people have webbed toes is not a random mutation. It is an occasional manifestation of a trait that is contained in the human genome.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Careful Jack...
There is no "calling upon" as if in response to a need. Evolution is entirely dependent upon random, yes random, mutation. Natural selection is the powerful, but unconscious, filter that lets some mutants live to reproduce and dooms others to die. Cetaceans got their flippers from ancestral paws because some terrestrial ancestor was a mutant who had a bit of extra skin between the toes. Not a big advantage, but over millions of years, the tiny things add up. The phrase "genomic plan" makes me nervous I suppose. There is no plan. Some accidents work. Most do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Feb 14 - 02:03 PM

Careful Jack...
There is no "calling upon" as if in response to a need. Evolution is entirely dependent upon random, yes random, mutation. Natural selection is the powerful, but unconscious, filter that lets some mutants live to reproduce and dooms others to die. Cetaceans got their flippers from ancestral paws because some terrestrial ancestor was a mutant who had a bit of extra skin between the toes. Not a big advantage, but over millions of years, the tiny things add up. The phrase "genomic plan" makes me nervous I suppose. There is no plan. Some accidents work. Most do not.